LulzSec Document Dump Shows Cops' Fear of iPhones

jfruhlinger writes "People are starting to comb through the details of the law enforcement documents made public by LulzSec. Blogger Kevin Fogarty noticed one interesting trend: The cops seem very anxious about iPhones, particularly apps that would allow encounters with police officers to be recorded. Ironically, the cops seem extremely concerned with protecting their own privacy, but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have."

Comments

Funny...

[DMFNR]

Funny how they're so concerned about protecting their own privacy while violating that of others.

Re:Funny...

[Obfuscant]

(cops NEVER shoot to wound or disable)

I want to make it clear I am replying ONLY to this comment, not anything else in the parent.

Shooting to wound or disable would be admitting that the use of deadly force was not necessary. Shooting is supposed to be justified on those grounds.

Second, "shooting to wound" would become a less-than-deadly force option, which means it would be justified in more cases. You'd have more officer-involved shootings, not less. And more people would die because "shooting to wound" sometimes results in death.

So no, you do NOT want to teach cops to "shoot to wound" because you'd not be happy with the results.

Re:Funny...

[Cwix]

Good cops should stop protecting the bad ones then. If they are good cops then they would be fighting for justice, irregardless if the injustice comes from inside or outside their department.

If you need sources for "good" cops protecting bad ones, a Google search will easily supply relevant results.

no expectation of privacy

[FudRucker]

none, especially not for public servants in public, what part of "public" dont they understand? they are public servants out in public serving the public, no chance of privacy, the sooner they get this trough their head the better behaved the police will be and the less chance of law abiding citizens being brutalized...

Re:no expectation of privacy

[AdmiralXyz]

"all rights to individual privacy"? No, of course not. No one is arguing that we should have the right to watch police officers or government officials when they're at home with their kids, that's stupid. We're saying there should be no expectation of privacy while they're on the job performing a public service, with public money.

Re:no expectation of privacy

[Lunix Nutcase]

Your scenario is completely different. There are even case law rulings to back up the fact that public servants in public do not have a right to privacy. These states and cities who abuse wiretapping laws to stop people from taking public videos of cops should be punished for gross misuse of the legal system.

Re:no expectation of privacy

[DeadCatX2]

should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government?

When they are on-the-job, yes. Unless they go to the bathroom.

Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?

When they are on-the-job, yes. Unless they go to the bathroom.

Oh, btw, there's nothing secret about recording police officers, it's pretty obvious you've got some sort of recording device.

Oh, btw2, it's been ruled by courts that employers are allowed to dig through any of your shit that the company owns, like your company cell phone to see who you've been texting.

Fundamental trust

[U8MyData]

There is no trust anymore, which in my opinion is killing the fabric of the country. Cops don't trust us; we don't trust them. The government doesn't trust us and we don't trust them. The government looks at us like a vast field of something to be harvested from rather than a collection of individuals, families, and businesses that rely on them to create conditions of security, prosperity, and liberty. Instead we get "you little people", "don't bother me", and "Don't you know who I am?" attitudes among other things. I don't know how to take things back, but it take a paradigm shift I fear.

I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons...

[Assmasher]

...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?

The only value I can imagine in preventing their being recorded would be to cover up misdeeds.

Now, if we're talking about a police officer who is undercover, I could imagine circumstances that could preclude recording, but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?

Re:vehicle cams

[dougmc]

Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they? What they're afraid of I guess is retaliation against their families by gangs

Really, what they're afraid of is evidence of their wrongdoing being used against them.

Think the Rodney King incident. The police were acquitted, though it seems to most that they should have been convicted.

Having their actions recorded by citizens takes some of the power away from the police and puts it in the hands of the citizens -- and police don't like giving up power. THAT is what they're afraid of.

They might claim that they're afraid of retaliation by gangs or something else, but that's not the real reason they don't like being recorded. They don't like being recorded because nobody likes being recorded when these recordings might be used against them later.

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume your logic goes like this
"He deserved the shit kicked out of him. Look at what he did to the cops!!"

My answer - Someone killed a cop, does that give the cop the right to kill them?
If so, then just roll up judges and juries, do away with them, and be honest about it.

The police are there to enforce the law.
Enforce the law, not dispense justice - that's what judges and juries are supposed to do - and for good reason.

When a cop beats someone, regardless of what the "beatee" did, it is a criminal offense. Sure, lots of police get away with it, or find justification for doing so, but that doesn't change it into something lawful.

Rodney King (or whoever is getting beat today, or right this minute) may have been a thug, but even thugs are subject to a fair trial and justice meted out by a judge and jury. And if the person isn't a thug, and injustice is surely being given - isn't the travesty that much worse?

Context may make someone's bad behavior more UNDERSTANDABLE, but it won't ever justify it.
It appears you seem to misunderstand justification and understanding.

I'm held to account. Why aren't they?

[jeko]

At my work, I'm responsible for various chunks of municipal infrastructure that carry Big Important Messages such as "We need a doctor right now," "This cop needs help," "This firefighter's in trouble," etc.

When I was hired, I had to sign a fifty-page document that agrees to the following. The cameras pick me up when I get within 100 feet of the office, they stay on me every minute of every day and the video is archived for years. I agree to audio recordings at any time. My ID badge is trackable and my movements recorded. While I am acting as a representative and employee of this company, all communications of any kind are company property. I have no expectations of privacy at all while I am acting on behalf of the company. All phone calls -- cell, landline and voip -- are recorded. Every keystroke is logged. All emails and IMs are stored. For the 9-12 hours a day that I am doing my job, there is no such thing as a "personal" conversation.

If I make a mistake of any kind -- whether it had consequences or not -- the company is within their rights to fire me on the spot without recourse. I have agreed to mediation, meaning I cannot take my employer to court and I will lose any disagreements. If I make a mistake anyone notices, the company will cheerfully feed me to the customer's lawyers.

All of this because my actions carry a risk of liability for the company and a theoretical risk to human life.

Why on Earth shouldn't someone who carries live ammunition be held to at least the same standard? If Seal Team Six can do their jobs on camera with a live mike, why can't local law enforcement?

And by the way, that "Slut Walk" comment came from a Toronto police officer who implied that a woman deserved to be raped because she dressed like a slut.

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110217/police-slut-comment/20110217/?hub=OttawaHome

A Toronto police officer who told a gathering of university students that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like "sluts" has issued an apology.

Mark Pugash, director of communications for the Toronto Police Service, said the officer would send a written letter of apology to faculty and students at York University for inappropriate comments made at the university's Osgoode Hall Law School.

The officer in question sent a written apology to the school later on Thursday.

Pugash said the officer had also been disciplined internally.

The comments were reportedly made during a campus safety meeting on Jan. 24.

Speaking as a brother, a husband and a father of daughters, the boy that made that comment has no business being allowed out on his own, let alone wearing a badge.

I don't care if a woman is a professional crack whore, a rape victim deserves your utmost sympathy, respect and compassion. You treat both the victims and the topic at large as if God and Mary Magdalene were personally going to hold you accountable for absolutely everything.

If you can't understand that, you have no business being in mixed company, let alone mine. I hope to God you don't share a uniform with anyone in my family.